Peter Reynolds thinks sex with minors is ok. WTF?

Author: James Collins

If you’re at all interested in the ever-evolving story of how Peter Reynolds needs to learn to shut up, then you know about his blog.  If you don’t, have a peek at this gem, it should have you sufficiently enraged.  Well, if you’re a decent person who believes that teachers shouldn’t prey on their students sexually and that the parents of said kids have a right to get emotional about it, then you will get pissed.

If not … I’ll let you think about what that means.

You have to hand it to Peter.  You can’t write better fiction than this.  He takes the one position almost every demographic can agree upon, that sex with minors is unacceptable, and then assumes the opposing stance to, well, everyone.  That takes either some monumental arrogance or just the biggest pair of brass balls that anybody ever strapped on before their first run for public office.  He does know the upcoming Corby by-election is in essence a popularity contest, doesn’t he?

Not surprisingly a website called Politics UK, which once gave Peter an award and then withdrew it, took exception to his attitudes.  They have the same “politically correct” inclinations as the rest of the industrialized world concerning sex with minors.  They disapprove, as one could only expect in this age.  Peter is having none of it, naturally, so he did the one thing he knows how to do when his opinions are challenged.

 

 

He made empty threats about lawyers.  He said that he would make his lawyers very rich.  Being as we have examined Peter’s work history in the past, we can surmise he isn’t really all that wealthy himself.  If he doesn’t have a whole lot of money, where is he getting the cash for lawyers?  Perhaps the CLEAR donation begging letters should illustrate more clearly that you are donating to the “Save Peter’s Reputation Fund”, by extension making his lawyers a little wealthier.  Perhaps Peter should reconsider how he is spending money these days; he does have an election to fund.

Even more outrageous than the threats he levels against Alan Wyllie in these postings is the attitude and arrogance he displays.  He obviously overestimates his own importance.  He acts as though crossing the great Peter will have massive consequences.  I might point out that dozens of people have taken it upon themselves to stand up in the face of his despicable behavior and so far not one of them has faced any consequences of any kind.  The man better put up or shut up, because it doesn’t even provide a hearty laugh anymore, just a wry grin of bemusement.

Despite the total lack of efficacy, Peter continues to use the same tactics to silence the cries of disgust.  He’s a bit of a one-trick pony when he faces opposition.  He likes to fall back on the infantile mantra “I’ll sue you” in the hopes it will intimidate people.  Sadly for Peter, it doesn’t really work.

In the past he has threatened people with police action.  This fell flat with most people, because after months crawl by in an alleged investigation with no arrests and nobody questioned, it seems the threat might have been empty.  He has threatened to charge people with malicious communication, harassment, computer misuse, you name it.  I think he spends a fair amount of time pouring through obscure texts of British Common Law looking for statutes which might be twisted to his purposes.

Lucky for everyone else the police themselves have discretion and some common sense.  They take Peter as seriously as I do, which is not at all.  Being as these threats have fallen largely on deaf ears, Peter is turning to threats of civil action instead.  The burden of proof in civil action is far less strict than that found in criminal law.  If he could somehow show a preponderance of evidence that people were harassing him he might have a case.

That is if he could scrape together the funds to actually hire a lawyer.  The list of people he has threatened to sue grows with each passing hour.  It currently includes dozens of people who have either been notified by Peter of intent to pursue civil action or threatened with arrest under phoney crime report numbers.  At his current pace he will have threatened to sue more people than he is seeking to represent in Corby by the day of the election.  That’s not a good start for a man seeking to legitimize what he absurdly refers to as his “political career”.

We see his threats, but just how seriously should we take them?  Would a man with a team of lawyers (he refers to them in the plural, so we must assume they are mighty and numerous) actually give you notice himself that he was going to pursue civil action?

This seems unlikely.  I would imagine if somebody who actually has a team of lawyers waiting in a glass cage like Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons decides to sue you for something, then those lawyers would draft a letter indicating such.  I myself have been the recipient of such a letter.  The individual with intent to take me to court didn’t make a call or post a threat in an online forum, I got notice from their attorney informing me of the reserved right to file civil action.

That’s right; when the lawyers get involved they do all the talking.

Peter is more like a belligerent child than a serious politician.  He routinely makes statements that get him in trouble with people, but then when confronted with those statements he threatens action by some body of authority.  He can’t defend his own position.  He claims that everything he has publicly posted was “forged” and when you question that stance he falls back on threats of legal action.  It’s not even amateur hour anymore, it’s a joke that just doesn’t end.  You couldn’t sell the man as a sit-com character because he isn’t believable.

What is he going to do in a serious political debate when confronted with these issues?  Will he threaten his political rivals in the Corby by-election with police action and lawsuits in a televised debate?  Will he do the same in Question Period when other MP’s make him look the fool?  It’s a real issue that you need to address as a voter.  Do you want a representative who can’t stand on his own two feet in a serious discussion of issues?